Or think of a long train (our record in Australia is 4.5 miles long with 682 cars and 8 locomotives), The couplers between the cars are designed to have a small amount of slack so overall the train stretches when pulled and compresses when braked. Imagine the train is stopped. Apply power to the lead locomotive, and the coupling to the next car will stretch a bit before that car starts to move. The process ripples down the length of the train. After a short while, the signal that the train is moving arrives at the last car (a mile or more from the loco) though overall not one of the cars has moved more than a few yards.
and:
Richard Feynman has stated that every electron affects every other electron in our universe.
How many times the Dunning-Kruger exemplar above has mentioned Richard Feynman and/or QED, without the first clue as to the workings of his/its basic theory, would be hilarious, were it no so pathetic.
Another blunder, from the land down under?
Happy listening
|
But quantum entanglement has no practical applicability to music reproduction today.
Who said it did?
I pointed out: the phenomenon of information being instantaniously transmitted between entangled particles, has been accepted by Physicists, for decades.
ie: Even Einstein recognized the phenomenon, referrring to it as, "spooky action at a distance", 80 years ago.
I could have as easily used the phenomenon of a Bumblebee's ability to fly and that being accepted without explanation by the World's best Aeronautical and/or Aerospace Engineers, until Fluid Dynamics was developed. Only then could Dickinson use that science, to model how it could lift that fat butt into the air, with those tiny wings (circa 2005).
Another example might be why humans can smell/differentiate a vast multitude of odors*, with only something like 400 nasal receptors.
*some say 10K, some: a trillion.
21st Century experimentation in Quantum science says it's likely that our noses are actually listening to and recognizing the frequencies/sounds, generated by atoms and molecules, via quantum tunneling.
ie: https://blog.donders.ru.nl/?p=11552&lang=en
and:
https://www.pbs.org/video/the-quantum-power-of-the-human-nose-oc1ldk/
AGAIN, the point being: no one has all the answers, or can make definitive statements.
Are you really so obtuse?
|
The voltage on those coils was in the 20-40K range, and everything was DC (6,12 or 24V).
DC voltage on an O-scope will just appear as a straight, horizontal line and read consistant with the scope’s voltage demarcations/setting.
On an engine analyzer: everythings zero, until the magnetic field in the coil collapses and the resultant high voltage is sent through the distributor, to a plug.
At that point: there’s a pronounced spike on the screen, repeated every time the points open and which appears very similar to an ECG trace, without the secondary pulse (lub sans dub).
Happy listening!
|
As I often mention: there are a plethora of phenomena surrounding us (our universe*), that science/Physics has yet to understan
For instance: 95-96% percent of what makes it* up, to this day remains unknown/a mystery.
No one has all the answers, or: can make definitive statements.
That's why what's studied in our halls of higher learning, is refered to as 'Electrical Theory'.
Regarding entanglement*:
https://phys.org/news/2025-01-quantum-entanglement-nanoscale.html
*That particular phenomenon (second paragraph in above article) has been accepted by Physicists, for decades.
Happy listening!
|
This article explains and animates what a sinusoidal or sine wave is:
As did mine (very clearly) and how they're sinusoidal audio/musical signals, in our audio applications.
|
I will no longer reply to your nonsense posts, here or anywhere else on this forum. Take care.
Uh huh!
Like I said on the first page:
Don't blame you, one bit
You've nothing with which to counter, but: your ignorance of Physics.
Happy listening!
|
QED (repeatedly)?
Mostly: non sequitur!
|
Albert Einstein would assert that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
And: proven wrong, by some of the most vigorous testing/experimentation in Physics, as mentioned previously and (obviously) ignored by the Dunning-Kruger sufferer above.
ie:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/proving-that-quantum-entanglement-is-real
The willful ignorance on this site has become SO very tedious.
|
|
@jea48 -
Save your keystrokes!
Happy listening!
|
jea48 -
Regarding the vid in that link: replace, "change" with, "disturbance" and you have the same basic descriptions/principles as my link on virtual particles. Insert, "oscillation" for either and you have the description I use most often.
The pictoral representations and nomenclature/semanics, contained in the various, previous postings/links, on our model/theory (QED) may vary greatly, but: all represent the same basic particle/wave functions and the Right-Hand Rule.
|
|
|
Still working on those paragraph/typing skills.
|
@r27y8u92 -
Here's a rehash, of something I posted in response to a thread entitled, 'Ok, but does your audio gear have rotons (metamaterials)?', back in 2021.
The skill of paragraphing on this site had eluded me, at the time.
The following should be an easier read.
Don't take anything toward the end of the post personally, as it was in response to a genuine dolt, back then.
Back in 1927 Vienna, at the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics, some of the greatest minds on the planet (ie: Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Curie, etc) got together to discuss things like photons and electrons.
Arguments quickly ensued between those that wanted the universe to make sense, based on classical Physics and/or Relativity and those that were theorizing about quanta (packets of energy) and how so many things, observed in their experiments and in their theorems, based on such as Planck's Constant and Heisenberg's Uncertainty, seemed irrational.
Every day: Einstein would come up with an objection, as to why such must be in error and by evening: Bohr would have an answer.
As an example: Wave-Particle Duality. Einstein wanted electrons to just be solid particles, all the time. Bohr asserted that they existed as fuzzy/indistinct waves, with no particular position. Only a multitude of possibilities, until observed or detected, at which time, they become particles.
Einstein replied, "So, you're telling me the moon doesn't exist, until I look at it?"
Anyway, that's a miniscule, much simplified slice of what took place then.
What followed that conference, is a matter of history and experimentation.
Some proved Einstein's assertions.
Others: Bohrs
Probably: the resultant inventions that are most notable, whether you believe them to be evil or not, were the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.
Obviously: Quantum Mechanics works.
One of the arguments, of which I was most interested, back in the 60's, while studying Physics, was that of Entanglement (if a photon or electron are split into two entities, each when detected/observed, will exhibit identical properties (spin), whether across the room, or across the universe. Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance".
To make it fit with Relativity, his universal speed limit (speed of light) and make any sense, at all: he postulated that when a photon is split in two, both (at the source) already have those properties determined.
Quantum Mechanics stated they exist as wave functions and don't exhibit any properties until observed/detected, at which point the information is instantaneously communicated (again: regardless of distance).
No one had a theorem, by which to test that, until a guy named Bell (who I believe to have actually been ambivalent about the whole thing) came up with one. He lacked the means by which to test his math, however.
Then: a couple guys at Berkley, California cobbled some equipment together and proved the Quantum Mechanics view correct, using Bell's theorem.
You can deny the facts, until you're blue in the face, BUT: without what's been gleaned from the study of Quantum Mechanics: we wouldn't have a few of the inventions that, I'll just bet, most of you have in your homes. ie: LASERs, GPS, anything digital (computers, cellphones, smartphones), semiconductors (ie: diodes, transistors, ICs, etc), the electron microscope, and MRI (well... maybe those two: not in your home).
The list could go on.
Then, there's Nicola Tesla. Make fun (if you will) regarding his belief in Quantum Mechanics, but he's to be thanked for the AC you're enjoying, in your home. His inventions and genius* took the likes of you Deny'intologists, kicking and screaming, into the Twentieth Century.
*ie: Ever heard of the Niagara Falls Power Project?
My point always is (refer to my prior posts): no one has all the answers, yet!
Happy listening!
|
@samureyex -
That is Science. If you think what you know is absolute, you are betraying Science on a fundamental level.
+1
As I've often mentioned:
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old).
He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"
For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers that might be wrong.”
and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
|
@jea48 -
Does the green arrows represent the signal traveling from the source to the load through the dielectric insulation?
Is the EM wave the signal, or does the EM carry the signal? Or is the signal embedded in the EM wave?
I'm certain you've seen a 60Hz AC trace on an O-scope.
As you're aware: that's (basically) a picture/capture of a 60Hz, sinusoidal electrical wave and what's being driven, when combined with its corresponding magnetic wave (resulting in Poynting vector's direction) from source to load*.
Were it the DC voltage/current, from an amp's power supply, modulated by the amp's output devices, into an amplified musical signal; it would appear much more complex, but: still a sinusoidal wave.
*outside the dielectric, in the discussed model
That voltage potential exists, outside of a hot AC lead's conductor/cabling, even without a closed circuit, is why a non-contact voltage detector can work.
Hope some of that helps.
Happy listening!
|
@jea48 -
S represents the signal. Yes?
The 'S' stands for Sinousoidal electric field, which when combined with it's magnetic field, results in the Poynting vector that determines the direction and strength of the electromagnetic wave's energy* flow.
*our systems' AC or musical signals
SO, basically: yeah!
Happy listening!
|
Well, this has been interesting, if a bit cranky at times. Discussions on these and other forums always seem to come down to "my Phd is bigger than your Phd" or something similar. Interesting, nonetheless.
And then: there are those* with no PhD (or anything close), which are worthy of nothing but disregard/disdain.
*ie: Dunning-Kruger exemplars, Denyin'tologists and Naysayer Church adherents, that ignore the science and experiments that have given us the many modern conveniences, medical devices and SS equipment they so love.
Happy listening!
|
1) Your first statement above is completely incorrect. A fuse (to take your example) does not carry a voltage (whatever that means, since it is a meaningless statement in the first place). The idea of ’source’ and ’load’ are irrelevant in electrical theory; you can represent any part of a (linear-ized) circuit as a ’source’ with an ’impedance’ that is connected to the rest of the circuit ("load"). The fact that we as humans interested in hearing sound being reproduced interpret one component as a source and another as a load has nothing to do with the way in which electrical circuits behave.
@jea48 - +1
I didn't bother responding to the total nonsense above, knowing that the uneducated poster/poser would completely miss the implications/ramifications, were I to mention/post anything, as regards Poynting Vectors*.
*ie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
I'm certain: you do!
Happy listening!
|
It seems that unfortunately the forum is also open to people that post outright incorrect or irrelevant things. That's a shame.
ie: The ldea that there are actually pictures of that electron cloud, that you mentioned (LOL)?
|
|
The story you keep telling yourself that ’nobody understands electricity’ is completely false - and funnily enough, it was Feynman that with QED (Nobel in 1965) added the last pieces to the puzzle. You quote, but you don’t read or understand.
To anyone ACTUALLY INTERESTED in expanding their understanding of this idea/theory, as regards electricity/electromagnetism, I repost:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/an-updated-feynman-experiment-could-heal-the-rift-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity/
There are simply too many variables and unknowns (95-96%) in our universe, that disallow the categorical propositions, presented by the ignorant/uneducated.
|
Derek discusses the case of a very simple circuit (a battery, a switch and a 'load' which could be a lightbulb), but it's easy to see how the exact same physical mechanisms are acting on a complex, variable signal ('music'), and why lumped element models are used to simplify the representation... to the point where they can over-simplify it!
Derek discusses DC, while our conversation hinges around AC*, whether in our power cables, or- signal wires, which carry waveforms (either 50/60Hz or musical), the propagation speed(s) of which, depends on factors like frequency(s) and dielectric absorption of the dielectric involved.
*Mentioned before my first link, in my first post.
|
@thecarpathian -
Got a problem with Physics, History and facts, do we?
|
I will no longer reply to your nonsense posts, here or anywhere else on this forum. Take care.
Don't blame you, one bit!
You've nothing with which to counter, but: your ignorance of of Physics.
Happy listening!
|
|
WELL: the Cargo Cult's still building runways.
Time for another repost:
Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1]
Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.
Do a bit of research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.
A rewind:
It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.
It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.
*heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
OR, two:
The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.
Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications. THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!
Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.
At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.
But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.
They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.
Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).
Solid State amps?
OOPS (back to tubes)!
Your Smart Phone?
FA'GET ABOUT IT!
Your car's GPS?
NOPE!
Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.
Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?
*Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.
Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric, is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.
But, I digress:
Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?
Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their own beliefs, (limited) education, experience and biases.
One anecdote that some may find interesting; about their walks in the woods and how Richard Feynman's father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, into why and how.
It saddened him that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks; his dad asked what he was learning in college.
At that moment he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.
It wasn't an insult or condescension.
Just reality.
Oh well: let the cult go build a runway!
references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=Examples%20include%20lasers%2C%20electron%20microscopes,systems%2C%20computer%20and%20telecommunication%20devices.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsquantum-mechanics#:~:text=Quantum%20mechanics%20led%20to%20the,the%20science%20of%20quantum%20mechanics!
https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-101/quantum-applications-today
But: I'm, "religious", because I believe in the SCIENCE, from which all that sprang?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/
Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda)
.https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm#:~:text=Einstein's%20original%20equations%20had%20been,how%20the%20universe%20will%20end.
How about that?
Another example of a hypothesis/theory, with no way to EXPERIMENT/MEASURE, what you're sure must be there, in some detectable way, or another.
Just for fun:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-times-quantum-physics-blew-our-minds-in-2022/
Happy listening!
|
Before continuing, kindly get a degree in electrical engineering ...
quiet snort (of derision)
|
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872)
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project)
When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."
Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft.
Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe).
I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY." He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)
PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?
|
Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works.
That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY.
The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing.
Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it.
Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's. Then came Feynman’s. For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, FUSES, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems.
The following articles, read in sequence, illustrate my point:
https://www.steamnews.org/articles/math/albert-einstein-he-who-dared-to-challenge-newtons-physics
then:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/qed.html#:~:text=Quantum%20 electrodynamics%2C%20co....
and:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/an-updated-feynman-experiment-could-heal-the-rift-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity/
|
A rewind:
|
Anyone needing a rationale for experimenting with new fuses, cables or various, "tweaks" in their system and/or feeling dissuaded by the Church of Denyin'tology's antiquated electrical doctrines: take heart!
Many new electrical facts have been established in the past 100 years, lending support for the audible differences between them.
I couldn't find anything like, "Updated Electrical Theory For Idiots", but- did manage to find something resembling a cartoon, that even a child could follow. It neither mentions AC/sinusoidal waves in wires, nor does it go into the photon propagation of electromagnetic waves. It does, however, emphasize/demonstrate how Electrical Theory has progressed, since the 1800s:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJqykotjog)
These next two presuppose a certain amount of knowledge, in the field of modern Electrical Theory. Click, "more" in the first link's third answer, to get its entirety. Note how it mentions the OLD, "... commonly held misconception that the flow of electricity through a wire resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls...", to which the Denyin'tologists fervently adhere:
https://www.quora.com/Are-photons-involved-in-all-forms-of-electricity-for-example-when-it-flows-through-wires?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa
and:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348
per Feynman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Representation_of_physical_reality
It's an established (measured) fact that an electromagnetic wave's propagation and speed, are dependent on the materials, of which the transmission line (cable) are made (ie: Dielectric Constant/permittivity). The better (lower) the Dielectric Constant the better the flow and the longer it takes for that material to become polarized. One reason anything that comprises an RLC circuit (ie: capacitors, cables, PC boards), takes time to, "form", or, "break/burn-in".*
*Some things that make the Denyin'tologists apoplectic:
https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2019-dielectric-constant-of-pcb-substrate-materials-and-signa....
The, "conductor" acts as a waveguide
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html
Even the most inane (regarding the Sciences) must admit; braiding and twisting wires eliminates/reduces EMI interference.
That must lend credence to various cable geometries.
That better dielectrics enhance the propagation of electromagnetic waves (ie: your music signal), lends the same credence to choosing cables with better materials (ie: Polypropylene, Teflon, air, etc).
Of course: anything the Church of Denyin'tology's popes can't fathom, they'll summarily dismiss.
As simple a device as a fuse is: it still carries a sinusoidal signal/voltage, ALWAYS from source to load.
NOT back and forth!
Also (as mentioned above): any fuse acts as an RLC circuit, the 'C' of which will be determined by properties of its wave guide's/conductor's surroundings (ie: glass, air, bee's wax, ceramic, end cap materials, etc).
Any commonly drawn wire will exhibit a chevron pattern in its crystal lattice, so: why not "directionality" and why Ohno Continuous Cast, single crystal wire sounds better, to so many?
Stated above are scientifically tested, measured and proven facts.
There is no "contest", or "dispute" involved.
Anyone that feels compelled to harp on not hearing any differences, is obviously too obtuse to understand the term "variables" (as frequently mentioned) and worthy of disregard.
My only goal in these threads has ever been to encourage those with a mind to experiment with their systems, based on the latest (20th/21st Century's) findings of ACTUAL Physics/science and ignore the Cargo Cult's incessant runway building (objections, convolutions, deflections and obfuscations).
|
|
